Allowing banning of declared champs is promoting toxic behavior.

There is simply no legitimate reasoning to allow banning of a declared champion other than to troll or be toxic to the person that declared it.

While there may be times that you may want to ban a new or what you consider a 'troll' champion it is still toxic behavior on the part of the person banning.

Riot always says that you're only responsible for YOUR actions and retaliation is not an excuse so if there is an actual legitimate reason for allowing this in champ select then I would like to know what that is.

Edit: Added the example from below to original post.

If you declare a champ someone can ALWAYS ban it intentionally. For whatever reason. Now, in an environment such as solo queue where no single player has inherent priority over another other than role definition and pick order this means that the cumulative negative impact this will have will vastly outweigh any positives.

Since abstracts seem to be clouding the issue let's go with an example:

Player A wants to play Annie. Player B wants to ban Annie.

Either could be a random troll so over time that scenario is a wash. We'll take the most common suggested scenerio, Player A is last pick B is first.

Player A declares Annie. They have weighed whatever choices in their head and with the available information they decided to play Annie.

Player B has the exact same information available to them and in their mind they don't feel that having Annie available to last pick team mate is the right choice.

Given that it's solo queue and, statistically, being in the same rank range they are on equal standing. Neither has been granted any sort of team decision making, they are both two equals making opposing choices based on the same given information.

Now, 100% of the time if Player B decides to intentionally ban Annie it is because of one of two reasons only. Either they believe that they are superior to Player A and therefore their choice is correct above the considerations that Player B has weighed, or it is simply a malicious act.

Every single possible justification that Player B can give is equally available to Player A and yet Player B has the ability to override any decision making ability of Player A simply because they know better.

Player A has zero recourse other than to dodge. This setup is such that it ALWAYS rewards the mentality of 'I am good at this game and my teammates are idiots' and can only punish those that declare in good faith or have unpopular/non-meta picks.

Every single counter argument in this thread is predicated that you are Player B and that your decision to intentionally ban a teammates declared champ is ALWAYS right. Well, statistically that is impossible.

Over many iterations half the time, all things being equal, Banning would be the right choice, and half not banning is correct. Since Player A will NEVER have an opportunity to play Annie if she is banned then over time this will result in a net negative impact from JUST the decision alone, not to mention the effect on Player A's attitude going into the game.

Not one person has mentioned that their choice to intentionally ban another's champ could be the wrong choice and that is the crux of why I believe the current implementation can only continue to promote toxic behavior in select and statistically it can only get worse, never improve without external change.